Sto. Domingo v. Ordoñez
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The petitioner, Edgardo L. Sto. Domingo, was the municipal planning and development coordinator of Boac, Marinduque. His employment was terminated by the OIC Mayor, Pedrito M. Nepomuceno, based on several grounds. These included probable cause for violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act related to the renovation of the Boac Municipal Building, issuing a certificate of inspection and completion for incomplete construction, admitting guilt for this matter, and gross negligence and uncooperative character in his official functions. The termination notice cited findings from the Commission on Audit regarding disallowed expenditures of P726,863.79 for the renovation. 2. Procedural History: Following his termination, the petitioner wrote to the OIC Mayor asserting that his dismissal lacked due process, as he was not furnished with specific charges, given an opportunity to answer, confront witnesses, or defend himself. He subsequently filed a letter-petition for reconsideration with the Civil Service Commission, which was forwarded to the Review Committee established under Executive Order No. 17. The Review Committee requested a verified petition for reconsideration, which the petitioner submitted. On May 15, 1987, the Review Committee dismissed the petition for lack of merit. A subsequent motion for leave to cross-examine witnesses was denied by the Review Committee, citing its rules that prohibit formal hearings or witness examinations. 3. The Petition: The petitioner challenges the validity of Section 5 of the Review Committee's Rules of Procedure, arguing it violates due process by disallowing witness examinations. He also contests the Review Committee's resolution affirming his termination, contending it was based solely on the OIC Mayor's notice. The petitioner argues that the OIC Mayor lacked the authority to dismiss him, citing Executive Order No. 17 which he interprets as vesting dismissal authority in the Head of Ministry. The core of his argument is that his dismissal was effected without due process and by an unauthorized official.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioner was dismissed from his office in violation of his right to due process of law. Whether the OIC Mayor had the authority to dismiss the petitioner.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED. The resolution of the Review Committee under Executive Order No. 17 is AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of due process: The Court held that summary proceedings are not per se violations of the principle of due process. The petitioner was afforded an opportunity to be heard through his petition for reconsideration filed with the Review Committee, where he could present evidence. The Court cited several cases, including In re: Apolinar Flores, Ganaden v. Bolasco, Taga-an v. Roa, and Marcelo v. Tantuico, which sustained summary dismissals when grounds are substantiated and not based on whim or caprice. The petitioner's claim of lack of due process was found to be without merit because he was heard on his reconsideration and allowed to submit documents. The Review Committee conducted a summary investigation and found the petitioner culpable based on documentary evidence, including his signature on a Certificate of Inspection and Acceptance for a renovation project that was later found to be incomplete and non-compliant with plans and specifications, leading to the disallowance of P726,863.79. Furthermore, the petitioner was found guilty of insubordination for failing to attend two mandated seminars without explanation. The Court found no evidence of arbitrariness or caprice in the respondents' actions. On the issue of the OIC Mayor's authority to dismiss: The Court ruled that the petitioner's argument that the OIC Mayor lacked authority to dismiss him, citing Section 5 of Executive Order No. 17 which refers to the Head of Ministry, was without merit. Article 161 of the Local Government Code states that the municipal planning and development coordinator is appointed by the Municipal Mayor, making the petitioner a local employee subject to the mayor's disciplinary jurisdiction. Section 78 of the Local Government Code grants the mayor the authority to remove, suspend, and discipline his appointees. The general rule that the power to remove is inherent in the power to appoint was applied. The Court found no abuse of power by the Mayor, as there were valid grounds to terminate the petitioner's employment.
Main Doctrine
Summary proceedings in administrative cases do not per se violate the due process clause, provided that the employee is given an opportunity to be heard, such as through a petition for reconsideration, and the dismissal is based on substantiated grounds and not on mere whim or caprice.